Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[pitabread]

Some of them don't waste their time with it because they know better.

Oh, I know creationists don't spend any time with real world applied evolutionary biology. It's not stuff you'll generally find in the mainstream media, so creationist organizations don't bother with it. And since creationists are generally not given to pouring over scientific literature to uncover what evolutionary biology is actually used for, they remain blissfully ignorant of it.

Same as everyone else. If you are trying to make a point why not just make it and save the time.

I'm asking by which you mean by "ID". When you say stuff like "ID made science possible", that reads like an inherently nonsensical statement.

 

[pitabread]

This was your claim.
Dover involved a book in the library and a reference. That is about it. There was no push to get ID into the classroom.

The lawsuit centered around the fact that teachers were going to have to read a statement proclaiming that Intelligent Design was an 'alternative' to evolutionary biology; in effect, suggesting that there was a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary biology.

Such a thing had no place in the classroom. It would be like telling children that the four elements is an alternative to periodic table.

Dover was really a joke. Judge a buffoon.

Still bitter, huh?

When push comes to shove, creationists have a long history of losing legal fights. It's the way it goes.

If your case was so strong then you would welcome the competition. Instead you censor it.

If IDists/creationists wanted to make a legitimate scientific case for an alternative to evolutionary biology, then you start by doing legitimate science, publishing the findings, refining hypotheses, building a proper scientific theory, etc. Eventually legitimate science trickles down to the public school level.

What they did in Dover was try to leapfrog the whole process. And the only reason they do so is because parents get their knickers in a knot over science that they feel threatens their religious beliefs.

They can do all that without knowing anything relating to Darwin. All the modern discoveries in biology had nothing to do with Darwin. Penicillian, the double helix etc. You are overstating. I would also add an overblown assertion is not the same as empirical evidence. Fact being it is your opinion.

You're doing exactly what almost every creationist does when confronted with this: denial.

Again, this isn't a matter of opinion. It today's reality: evolutionary biology *is* an applied science. Heck, there is even a biotech firm named after the very concept (Evolutionary Genomics, Inc.).

(What is especially interesting is that their adapted traits platform on which they identify functional genes is specifically based on genes that have undergone positive natural selection; a concept pioneered by none other than Charles Darwin. There are even several references to Darwin on their site.)

Deny it all you want. Reality doesn't bend.

Religion is about attending church.

I'm using the commonly accepted definition of religion, i.e. "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." and/or "a particular system of faith and worship."

If you have a private definition, that's your own definition. I suggest using commonly accepted definitions as it tends to make communication easier.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one even came close to changing the subject. It was part of the subject and where the subject led. Making false accusations aren't going to help you here.



Nope just eyes and half a brain.



Sorry dude, you don't get to be the decider on what works and what doesn't. Show me one proof that claims of evolution contributes anything more than a bunch of people too big for their britches that cannot see what is right in front of their face, so they have to make up, and even fall for something they fantasized.

I note that even after pitabread repeatedly asked for examples on how ID contributed to science, this post still contains no such examples.

Do you have such examples or not?

 

[Larniavc]

You don't need to see it. All is needed is the effects. The only known cause for complex specified information is intelligence. Dogmatists rule it it from the get go. It is not a problem with the actual evidence. If there is two possibles then dogmatists will only allow for one answer. Natural. So humans produced bacteria? No it is my contention complex specified information and complex working machinary are fingerprints of super intelligence, not natural causes absent intelligence.

I would also say you cannot apply your standards consistently so you apply it selectively. SETI for example. Coded signals from outer space indicative of intelligent causation, not natural causes. It they received morse code like signals from outer space which when decoded contained instructions for the building of a spacecraft then only a fool would assume natural causes over intelligence. The same applies with bacteria. If you can't see intelligent causation then you don't know what you are looking at. You can't be helped.

Hiya.

What units are you using to measure complexity?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What units are you using to measure complexity?

Imaginary ones.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh, I know creationists don't spend any time with real world applied evolutionary biology. It's not stuff you'll generally find in the mainstream media, so creationist organizations don't bother with it. And since creationists are generally not given to pouring over scientific literature to uncover what evolutionary biology is actually used for, they remain blissfully ignorant of it.

If you choose to remain blissfully ignorant, or more like in denial of God, that is up to you. You can pretend it's me not in the real world, but that doesn't make it a fac

I'm asking by which you mean by "ID". When you say stuff like "ID made science possible", that reads like an inherently nonsensical statement.

Just as the the very sensible OP reads as nonsensical to you, when so many can see it makes perfect sense. You've chosen to blind yourself and believe a lie. That's why you come here and work so hard to try to push it. You're so insecure with the lie, you feel if you can can convince others of it, it'll make it more true, but it won't. Sad.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I note that even after pitabread repeatedly asked for examples on how ID contributed to science, this post still contains no such examples.

Do you have such examples or not?

I always find it funny when the Atheist gets their hands on what they think is a stumper. TGM, do you people have a book of these things?

See my last post starting with the bold. ID contributed everything, period. You think that's stupid? Again, I refer you to my last post.

And please, you all aren't really going to argue I have no proof there is the God that contributed everything? If so, and you haven't picked up on it yet, this is a Christian forum, that's what we do around here.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

And please, you all aren't really going to argue I have no proof there is the God that contributed everything? If so, and you haven't picked up on it yet, this is a Christian forum, that's what we do around here.

Seriously though, I appreciate your honesty here.

 

[dmmesdale]

The lawsuit centered around the fact that teachers were going to have to read a statement proclaiming that Intelligent Design was an 'alternative' to evolutionary biology; in effect, suggesting that there was a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary biology.

So now we are into definitions. It is not longer a search for truth but definitions by anonymous tribunals. I answered that on my #64 which was ignored. Is that how you practice science? Ignore?

'We don't care whether a particular proposition is true or not, we just care if it fits our naive, tautological, self-serving definition of science.'' If there are two possibilites for a given effect then science only allows for one? Really?

Such a thing had no place in the classroom.

So a search for truth has no place in class. Censorship rules and you guys are afraid of competition. If there are two possibilities then you guys only allow for one. Not only that, you guys do not want legit scrutiny. That is the real kicker. Your dogma is above question. There you have it modern science by naturalists.

It would be like telling children that the four elements is an alternative to periodic table.

For origin of life? Garbage. There are two legit alternatives. Living intelligent or natural absent intelligent. And don't tell me origin of life is different from evo because it is all taught in the same bio textbooks.

Still bitter, huh? When push comes to shove, creationists have a long history of losing legal fights. It's the way it goes.

I know about public education because i work in it and because i work in it i know you do not. Yesterday an atheist teacher was defending a Catholic school for example. Better prepare them for college. I did ask hm how many students graduate in our school district with two years college completed. He did not know. Like i said teaching curriculum is decided at the state level and you ignored the fact the judge cut and pasted 90% of his findings. No comment on that. Still think he was brilliant? You can count the number of class hours on one hand they spend on evo and origin of life. It is hit on in two grades and is really boring. Dissecting pigs or frogs is a hit but evo is a snoozer. There you have it and it did not cost you a dime.

If IDists/creationists wanted to make a legitimate scientific case for an alternative to evolutionary biology, then you start by doing legitimate science, publishing the findings, refining hypotheses, building a proper scientific theory, etc. Eventually, legitimate science trickles down to the public school level.

They have done all that. Meyer Signature in The Cell for example. Is peer reviewed. https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/04/...ature-in-his-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/

What they did in Dover was try to leapfrog the whole process. And the only reason they do so is because parents get their knickers in a knot over science that they feel threatens their religious beliefs.

They do not. They simply teach their children at home or thru the church mostly taught by public educators.

You're doing exactly what almost every creationist does when confronted with this: denial.

It is your claim then it is your burden to prove reasonably. You have not made your case so don't blame me. Not everyone is going to buy your snake oil.

Reality does not bend.

Agree and truth wins in the end. But you keep thinking whale sonar is the result of natural processes only. Nature can magically enable birds with sophisticated GPS systems so they can fly to specific nesting sites 10 K miles away. Butterflys too. Naturedidit and i don't have to think about it anymore.

I'm using the commonly accepted definition of religion, i.e. "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." and/or "a particular system of faith and worship."

I would say yours fits the latter.

 

[Speedwell]

And please, you all aren't really going to argue I have no proof there is the God that contributed everything? If so, and you haven't picked up on it yet, this is a Christian forum, that's what we do around here.

But that has nothing to do with the question pitabread asked.

Let us assume for purposes of this question that God exists and is the creator of all.

How does ID as a view of how He created contribute to science,

compared to the view that He created through evolution?

 

[dmmesdale]

ID contributed everything, period. You think that's stupid?

No. It is spot on. Without it we would not be here. Great answer.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But that has nothing to do with the question pitabread asked.

Let us assume for purposes of this question that God exists and is the creator of all.

How does ID as a view of how He created contribute to science,

compared to the view that He created through evolution?

OK, I'll try to inform you how if there was nothing created, there would be no science, and how God contributed it all..

Break the question down for me and I'll try to put it in simpler terms for you, but being as you aren't picking up on what I see as very simple, no guarantees.

What exactly do you mean by "contribute to science"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. It is spot on. Without it we would not be here. Great answer.

I thought so, and I know these people aren't that slow so, I can't imagine what's up here.

There will come a point where it's clear (as if it isn't already) that they aren't going to get it because they choose not too, then when we walk away because there is no more sense in arguing, they will see it as a victory.

People are so entertaining.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, I'll try to inform you how if there was nothing created, there would be no science, and how God contributed it all..

Break the question down for me and I'll try to put it in simpler terms for you, but being as you aren't picking up on what I see as very simple, no guarantees.

No, this is my version of the question. We both believe that God exists and is creator of all. Why is it more productive of useful scientific discoveries to assume that He brought about the present diversity of life through ID rather than through evolution?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, this is my version of the question. We both believe that God exists and is creator of all. Why is it more productive of useful scientific discoveries to assume that He brought about the present diversity of life through ID rather than through evolution?

Sheesh, that doesn't sound like the question at all.

I thought the question was worded very badly already, but now I have to ask whoever posed the question if they would break it down? Is SW's version accurate?

Why is it more productive of useful scientific discoveries

Please try again, I either have no idea what that means or I have no idea why you are asking me.

And what was the "no" part of your last reply referring to?

 

[Speedwell]

Sheesh, that doesn't sound like the question at all.

I thought the question was worded very badly already, but now I have to ask whoever posed the question if they would break it down? Is SW's version accurate?

Why is it more productive of useful scientific discoveries

Please try again, I either have no idea what that means or I have no idea why you are asking me.

And what was the "no" part of your last reply referring to?

OK. Scientific theories possess a property know as instrumentality. That is, they are useful in making predictions, finding new things out. Compare, for example, the heliocentric theory of the solar system with the geocentric theory. The heliocentric theory is better at predicting where the planets will be in the future than the geocentric theory, more useful in planning trips into outer space, etc.

So now we can compare two theories about how God brought about the present diversity of life on Earth. Which is more useful to biology? ID or evolution?

"No" just meant it's not pitabread's question any more; it's my question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So now we are into definitions. It is not longer a search for truth but definitions by anonymous tribunals. I answered that on my #64 which was ignored. Is that how you practice science? Ignore?

'We don't care whether a particular proposition is true or not, we just care if it fits our naive, tautological, self-serving definition of science.'' If there are two possibilites for a given effect then science only allows for one? Really?

So a search for truth has no place in class. Censorship rules and you guys are afraid of competition. If there are two possibilities then you guys only allow for one. Not only that, you guys do not want legit scrutiny. That is the real kicker. Your dogma is above question. There you have it modern science by naturalists. For origin of life? Garbage. There are two legit alternatives. Living intelligent or natural absent intelligent. And don't tell me origin of life is different from evo because it is all taught in the same bio textbooks.
I know about public education because i work in it and because i work in it i know you do not. Yesterday an atheist teacher was defending a Catholic school for example. Better prepare them for college. I did ask hm how many students graduate in our school district with two years college completed. He did not know. Like i said teaching curriculum is decided at the state level and you ignored the fact the judge cut and pasted 90% of his findings. No comment on that. Still think he was brilliant? You can count the number of class hours on one hand they spend on evo and origin of life. It is hit on in two grades and is really boring. Dissecting pigs or frogs is a hit but evo is a snoozer. There you have it and it did not cost you a dime.
They have done all that. Meyer Signature in The Cell for example. Is peer reviewed. https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/04/...ature-in-his-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/
They do not. They simply teach their children at home or thru the church mostly taught by public educators.
It is your claim then it is your burden to prove reasonably. You have not made your case so don't blame me. Not everyone is going to buy your snake oil.
Agree and truth wins in the end. But you keep thinking whale sonar is the result of natural processes only. Nature can magically enable birds with sophisticated GPS systems so they can fly to specific nesting sites 10 K miles away. Butterflys too. Naturedidit and i don't have to think about it anymore.

I would say yours fits the latter.

I need to start reading all the posts here...great post.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So now we can compare two theories about how God brought about the present diversity of life on Earth. Which is more useful to biology? ID or evolution?

Ok, working on an answer.

Which is more useful to you, and why?

 

[pitabread]

OK, I'll try to inform you how if there was nothing created, there would be no science, and how God contributed it all..

This confirms what I suspected. We weren't talking about the same thing when we are talking about "ID".

You're referring to "ID" as simply the designer itself; i.e. some external entity.

Whereas I am referring to "ID" as put forth by the proponents as a (purported) scientific challenge to evolutionary biology and an attempt to explain biological origins. IOW, I'm looking at it the same way I'd look at any other branch of science.

As a parallel example, think about a science like physics. I think we can agree physics has real-world application. For example, if I was to design and engineer a rocket, I would be applying knowledge of mass, acceleration, gravity, friction, etc. Basically stuff derived from an understanding of physics.

It's the same with biological evolution. Scientists can take things derived from evolutionary theory and use it in applied biology. For example, phylogenetic trees are created based on evolutionary relationships of organisms (similar to a family tree, but at a highter taxanomic level) derived from an understanding of evolutionary theory and various lines of associated evidence. In turn, these evolutionary relationships are directly applied in algorithmic techniques used in modern comparative genomics to identify different regions of genomes and in particular, identify genes and what their function is. Which in turn is applied in a variety of biological fields particularly modern agriculture and medicine.

So when I ask for contributions of ID to science, I am referring to the latter; IOW, I want an actual scientific theory and how it is applied. But if you're just referring to ID as a creator, then the question about ID's contributions to science is inherently nonsensical.

 

[pitabread]

So a search for truth has no place in class. Censorship rules and you guys are afraid of competition.

If there are legitimate scientific theories that have been vetted by scientific study and are fit to discuss in a middle school classroom, then sure. I'm all for it.

The problem is there aren't competing alternatives. Intelligent Design is not and never has been a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary biology. It's arguably not even a real science. So why would anyone want to teach it or even mention it in a middle school classroom? What's next, we bring up geocentrism as an alternative to heliocentrism? Or the four humors as an alternative to modern medicine? That would be stupid.

There are two legit alternatives.

Not from a scientific point-of-view, there aren't.

They have done all that. Meyer Signature in The Cell for example. Is peer reviewed.

Signature in the Cell is just a pop-sci book. That's mostly what IDists do. They write pop-sci books so that they can get their ideas out to the general public and influence public perception, not to mention make a buck or two in the process.

When it comes to performing legitimate academic research, getting it published in real scientific journals, and convincing other scientists of their ideas (particularly biologists), that's where they tend to fail hard. But that's the hurdle they need to overcome before their ideas will be fit for a middle school classroom.

It is your claim then it is your burden to prove reasonably. You have not made your case so don't blame me.

I linked to another thread where I discuss an application of evolutionary biology in modern genomics. Did you miss it the first time? Here is is again: How do creationists explain applications of common descent in modern comparative genomics?

And I even linked to a biotech firm that does this sort of stuff as part of their business: Evolutionary Genomics

This is just one example of applied evolution. I like this particular application though because it's arguably a direct application of data derived from evolutionary common descent itself.